The post is too vague without examples. So I took a guess at an example.

Without an example, I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

===

I know that’s the theme but that’s not an example. Of course the danger of examples is people (like me) can “miss the point” and start picking apart the example. But even with that possibility, I’d still like to see an example because that’s still too vague for conversation.

===

ok you’re talking vague political jargon. Not helping. Are you just talking to the people who already know exactly what you’re talking about and not to regular people?

“Hey those people I’m talking about? Yeah you know the kind. They’re awful.”

===

You’re dancing around what you’re *REALLY* talking about here. Vague, wimpy, empty phrases that solely signal to like-minded people who agree.

===

I’m not aware because you’re having 1/2 a conversation to 1/2 the political population.

I *am* aware, but I’m of the “other half” of the population which is why you’re being obtuse.

====

Why are you afraid to bring up specific examples of : “f exploiting victimization so it is catered into privilege-hood.”

===

a) I *am* white, but don’t know anything about “guilt for ancestral sins”. That’s a mis-reading of what it is to have white privilege and how to deal with it. “Guilt” is not a factor and if it is, they’re doing it wrong.

====

1) I can’t answer for: “vagina and boobs”. I don’t have any.
2) I’m not black. I can’t answer for them.
3) I’m not Muslim. I can’t answer for them.
4) I’m not a minority. I can’t answer for them.

But I’m white and can answer for white, or at least try.

====

I’m *of* the part of the political spectrum that agrees with the principle of intersectionality, even though I think a lot of them are going about it the wrong way.

You claimed I must be old and out of the loop. But no. I just don’t think like the right-wing political and the people who *think* they’re liberal like Bill Maher but who are really right-wing wearing a liberal cloak. [Pot smoking right wing = Bill Maher liberal]

I was taking issue with your virtue signalling. You virtue signal to others of your political bent. You *did* mention specifics – and that contains signalling as well – but at least its more honest what you’re talking about, rather than the usual vague “those of us who know, know”, which is so common in political discussions and it’s irritating.

====

Now back to the OP, now that I’m done with the rant:
“Weaponizing victimhood leads to a status of privilege in today’s society.

The very thing you fought against as a symbol of oppression – you now hide behind when it benefits your self interest.

Does group identity rob people of their individualism?”

It can. Atheism was always a negative until some turned it into a positive.

====

It has a literary connotation but now that I’ve explained, you understand the context I’m using it in – not as a literary genre but as what it says: “Science Fiction” as opposed to “Science Fact”. [or evidentiiary)

Did you want graphs full of sociological studies where case studies are added up to form aggregates?

====

[or maybe you don’t know how science works?]

====

Shall I “mickie mouse” it=You’re not a child.

—

Atheism has become a strong social positive in the last 22 years or so.

I’ll twitterize my comments for you… for now.

===

People are proud to be atheists now. They are in positions of political and social influence, especially in media (including the internet). At one time, it was a thing people were ashamed of.

—

Exactly. Atheism has become more socially acceptable.

===

Exactly. Equity. But some people feel threatened when a disenfranchised group seeks equity and start smear campaigns that attempt to make it look *as if* they’re seeking “extra rights” and “priviedges”.